Design standards fuel war of roses

Downtown revitalization, property rights haggled

Trent Davis, assistant purchasing agent for the city of Amarillo, assembles an LED street light in the city warehouse. The city of Amarillo has 66 new LED street lamps in stock as part of the urban design of downtown. The May 14 election will give voters

Related Links

The tree-lined streets of Amarillo's Plemons-Eakle Historic District look like a strange place for a battleground.

Estates built in the 1900s, smaller homes, houses turned to offices and apartment buildings make up an eclectic mix in a district recognized on the National Register of Historic Places. Urban design standards - three words that inspire reflex reactions in corners across town - have transformed Plemons-Eakle into the political turf upon which the city's future might be determined.

Enacted in August after a half-dozen public meetings, the urban design ordinance governs walkways, pedestrian lighting, landscaping and other exterior facets in both commercial and residential areas. Not all of Plemons-Eakle is covered by the standards, which apply to homes just north of Interstate 40 and west of Interstate 27.

Everywhere there are interpretations of the additional zoning requirements - called progressive by some and draconian by others.

That divide has pitted neighbor against neighbor and started a war of political action committees. Amarillo Citizens for Property Rights launched a petition drive to get a bid to repeal the standards on the May 14 ballot. Keep Amarillo Strong has countered, lobbying voters to reject the repeal bid and keep the standards in place.

Under the requirements, proposed exterior renovations to properties in the urban design district must be reviewed by city staff or, in the case of new construction or large projects, a seven-member city design board. No changes are required unless a property owner initiates a project.

Among homeowners in the urban design area, 88 percent - or more than four of every five - support the standards, according to Keep Amarillo Strong.

"I see the design standards as a way to help protect my investment in my home," said Troy Foos, who lives in the 1600 block of South Harrison Street and has resided in the neighborhood for 14 years.

Opponents "talk about paying more in taxes," he said. "Well, the only way that happens is if your property value goes up. ... To me, that's a heck of a trade-off."

But that possibility could price people out of their homes, while at the same time making investing in exterior remodeling too expensive, said property-rights group leader Amy Taylor-Restine. Her husband, Karl, is a commission candidate.

The couple live on Short Street off Washington. That street is a rarity in the neighborhood, featuring a mixture of housing stock, both regular and manufactured, plus a junkyard and other businesses.

Amy Taylor-Restine frames the dispute over design standards as one between haves and have-nots. She cites as an example of burdensome regulations a $3,860 sidewalk light required under the standards in cases of new construction or major renovations.

"If they put a $3,800 lamp in front of a trailer home, they're not going to bring up my property value," she said. "So it's a joke.

"As you look at some of the people who are (in favor) of this, they're very different from the people who live on Short Street. ... I don't think they know the kind of struggles people really have."

Planning Director Kelley Shaw said the scenario Taylor-Restine describes is unlikely. Standards billed as streetscape improvements - the addition of trees, sidewalks and pedestrian lighting - kick in only in three cases, Shaw said:

• Entirely new construction;

• an exterior renovation that costs at least $50,000 and equals at least half of the value of the structure; and

• conversion of a building vacant for at least a year to an active use, if the project includes exterior remodeling.

"No, we don't regulate what you plant in your private yard," Shaw said. "No, we don't care what color you paint your house. But there are certain things you do - changes to the exterior of your home - that would be subject to review."

Those things largely correlate to the types of projects that would be reviewed for a city building permit, even without the standards, he said. The information that the city Planning Department or design review board needs to see are site plans and other materials that generally would be submitted for a building permit - also required even without the standards.

"The nature of the project really does dictate what we need to see," Shaw said. "Sometimes, there would be nothing other than a site plan."

Amy Taylor-Restine called the mention of site plans or schematics "pretty intimidating."

Approvals for most projects can be made by city staff, Shaw said. Large projects, or those that contain unusual elements, would be referred to the Amarillo Downtown Urban Design Review Board.

No residential projects have been brought to the city for review since the ordinance took effect roughly eight months ago. On the commercial side, the board reviewed streetscape elements of two projects: a new Happy State Bank motor bank at Southeast 10th Avenue and Buchanan Street and the Courtyard by Marriott at the Historic Fisk Building on Polk Street at Eighth Avenue. Both are multimillion-dollar projects.

"It was more expensive ... but I don't think it added all that much to the cost of the deal, with new concrete, sod and things like that going in anyway," Hickman said. "If the entire downtown area becomes more attractive, obviously, it helps my property value."

"It seems to me it protects the community from willy-nilly development that hurts the quality and character of the neighborhood," said Jeff Soule, director of outreach for the American Planning Association, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

"And when you're buying, you're not buying the house, you're buying the neighborhood. You're buying the schools, you're buying the sidewalks, you're buying the street ... The public environment in a neighborhood is what sells houses."

Bill Peacock, vice president of research for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, disagreed.

Standards "tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property," Peacock said. "They generally add cost to a design. They're essentially making people do things they don't want (including) spend more money."

Some experts compared design standards to covenants or deed restrictions that frequently come with a property when it's purchased.

The deed restrictions for the Westover Village neighborhood in southwest Amarillo, for example, require a minimum of a two-car attached, rear-entry garage and driveway made only of concrete. The requirements also prohibit a property owner from parking a car, truck, boat or recreational vehicle in front of a house for storage.

"When you go in a neighborhood and you buy a house that is deed-restricted, you know exactly what you're getting up front," Peacock said.

The urban design standards preserve the neighborhood feel of the downtown residential area by preventing a business from paving the yard of a converted home for parking, for example, Shaw said.

Design standards are "extremely common" in cities across the United States, according to Soule and Texas A&M University urban planning professor Elise Bright.

"In general, the towns that have the most detailed design standards seem to be the most thriving," Bright said. "The idea that regulations will hurt - it's the opposite, actually."

Still, Chris Baker, who lives in the 1700 block of South Polk Street, isn't keen on design standards.

"People should have the right to have their house how they want it," he said.

His Polk Street neighbor, Downtown Amarillo Inc. Executive Director Melissa Dailey, participated on a city committee that wrote the standards.

"For most people, they (standards) are a positive, because they know their investment is going to be protected and, when future changes are being made, they're being made with the character of that neighborhood."

Continued protests from the core members of the property rights group prompted the City Commission to reopen discussion about the ordinance with a Nov. 30 public hearing. Commissioners ultimately opted not to alter the statute after hearing more support than opposition from speakers and letter-writers who live in the neighborhood.

The property rights group has dismissed the record of support for the ordinance because it said members were unaware they could submit written testimony. When Mayor Debra McCartt gave the organization the week following the meeting to submit letters, the group opted instead to focus on the petition drive to get a standards repeal on the ballot.

"I realize there are people who may not be in favor of what the area is doing," said Karla Ross, a Canyon resident who owns two apartment buildings in the residential portion of downtown. "Then I say look at living elsewhere where you might be happier. ... Sometimes you have to go along with what the majority decides."

Taylor-Restine said the issue is about rights.

"My neighbors might do something (with their property) that I disagree with," she said, "but I will defend their right to do it."

On the ballotThe May 14 ballot item regarding downtown urban design standards will read as follows.DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDSTo repeal the ordinance which enacted certain Downtown Urban Design Standards and established various procedures relating thereto, enacted on August 16, 2010, being Ordinance No. 7223FORAGAINSTVoting FOR means you wish to see the ordinances wiped off the city's books. Voting AGAINST those items means you wish to see the ordinances remain in place.Design details

Some details about the urban design ordinance:• The design standards govern property in an area extending from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks on the north and east of downtown to Interstate 40 on the south and Washington and Adams streets on the west.• The ordinance sets different standards for business and residential properties.• Standards apply to exterior renovations that require a city building permit, new construction or the conversion of a building vacant for at least a year to another use. Painting, which does not require a permit, does not trigger the standards.• The standards regulate walkways, landscaping and lighting in the public right-of-way and other exterior facets. A project to replace a roof, for example, would be reviewed to see if the roof is being replaced with materials in character with other structures in the neighborhood.• In some cases, the standards reinforce what property owners already must do under city mandates, such as maintain sidewalks in the public right of way on their property. Landscaping requirements for businesses correlate to regulations in the city's commercial landscape ordinance.On

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"I realize there are people who may not be in favor of what the area is doing," said Karla Ross, a Canyon resident who owns two apartment buildings in the residential portion of downtown. "Then I say look at living elsewhere where you might be happier."

I really don't know how to respond to this. If you don't like an ordinance that might force you to spend thousands against your will for purely aesthetic reasons, you should sell your home you have lived in for decades? Have I been transported to red China?

The biggest problem with this law aside from trampling property owners' rights is what comes next? Will the city make the law more onerous? Will the city decide pink and purple picket fences are required for every house?

Also, the idea that this law is akin to deed restrictions is unbelievably daft. When you purchase your home, you agree contractually to the deed restrictions. No one comes along later and arbitrarily adds more restrictions. The other bogus argument is that we are already restricted because of building permits. Building restrictions are in place for safety reasons not aesthetics. It is completely understandable that someone has to abide by safety regulations. The design standards are 100% arbitrary - the Downtown Cabal decided a pedestrian light is purdy so they decided to codify their subjective tastes in law. This my friends reeks of fascism.

Last but not least the argument that this law protects your "investment" is asinine. Is your property going up because some people in your neighborhood have been forced to spend thousands on a stupid light? What if they let their house get run down because they spent their savings on $3800 light instead of adding new siding or other improvements?

These standards are fascism at it's finest. "You have to do with your property at your expense what I think is best for your property whether you agree or not." I would live to see someone give me a rational argument as to where I am wrong. I doubt I get one though.

That is a great photo of the new light fixtures going up downtown! I have previously only seen drawings. I'd be pleased to have several in my neighborhood and can't wait to see them installed.

I think this was a pretty fair article. Some folks think you should be able to do what ever you want to with your property (including nothing) and others feel like it's ok to hold everyone to a smiliar baseline standard to keep things nice and orderly.

The neighborhood in question would look fantastic with these light fixtures! The folks in the neighborhood want the Standards, so I'm going to vote to allow them to keep them!

If the city is giving 200 thousand to the methodist, down town, for their side walks and lamps does this mean that they will also give the citizens, that are bound by the same regulations, an equal, portion of money to put in the required side walks and lighting?

Really? $3,860.00 to put in a light? Sign me up for the light making business. Then to read the city is giving a price cut for the Methdist Church? Not right at all.

First of all, the church could afford the lights long before the average home owner. Is the city in the religion businsess? Not what TAX money should be spent on. Separation of Church and State!

Next, if I buy a house in a neighborhood with deed restrictions I know that when I buy the house. Deed restrictions should be grandfathered into existing neighborhoods and current residents should be exempt. If the residents opt to participate then that should be their FREEDOM to do so.

I agree with you 100%. Just another attempt to take more control of a person's property and make them pay the bill. Have you ever noticed how the liberals and many Democrats want to make your decisions for you but want you to either pay directly or through taxes. This action is enough to convince me not to consider moving to Amarillo any longer. I may move into the area but not the town for sure. Socialist Amarillo at it's finest.

The people in my neighborhood oppose this for a simple reason. It is special treatment for special property owners some of which have relatives on the commission or are puppets for the powerful . I want lights on my street. I want my alley lit. I want to tell my neighbors to spend money they don't have to make my street look better. This is big government at its worst. THEY TRIED TO DO THIS WITH NO VOTE BY YOU AT ALL!!. VOTE NO!! I can't wait.(The editorial support is because the paper property is in the zone of anointment.

Numerous major cities around the Country have implemented these "Urban Design Standards", also known as "Sustainable Development".

Citizens are starting to realize it is nothing more than a ploy for LIMITING YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS for the "greater good". And, they are rejecting them in droves. The City of Garland at it's March 22nd CC Meeting had their Citizens & Businesses respond in droves & the City has listened.

Ask yourself this: As a City, is it easier to "control" 100 people in 100 homes or...100 people in a Condo complex. Why is it we hear of Lofts, Apts, Condos downtown in Ama incl. major cities across the Country?

Amy Taylor-Restin: "If they put a $3,800 lamp in front of a trailer home, they're not going to bring up my property value," she said. "So it's a joke.

Planning Director Kelley Shaw said standards billed as streetscape improvements - the addition of trees, sidewalks and pedestrian lighting - kick in only in three cases:
• Entirely new construction;
• an exterior renovation that costs at least $50,000 and equals at least half of the value of the structure; and
• conversion of a building vacant for at least a year to an active use, if the project includes exterior remodeling.

So, what's the joke? That someone would renovate the exterior of a trailer home to the tune of $50,000 and NOT put in a street light?

5_for_ fighting: Last but not least the argument that this law protects your "investment" is asinine. Is your property going up because some people in your neighborhood have been forced to spend thousands on a stupid light? What if they let their house get run down because they spent their savings on $3800 light instead of adding new siding or other improvements?

Design Standards: • an exterior renovation that costs at least $50,000 and equals at least half of the value of the structure.

So, how could someone spend their savings on a light? A person wouldn't have to buy a light until they spend $50,000 AND 1/2 the value of the structure on exterior improvements.

justaword: Next, if I buy a house in a neighborhood with deed restrictions I know that when I buy the house. Deed restrictions should be grandfathered into existing neighborhoods and current residents should be exempt. If the residents opt to participate then that should be their FREEDOM to do so.

Design Standards: Under the requirements, proposed exterior renovations to properties in the urban design district must be reviewed by city staff or, in the case of new construction or large projects, a seven-member city design board. No changes are required unless a property owner initiates a project.

The standards are obviously in favor of existing property owners in the neighborhood. Most (around 88% of residents contacted in a door to door survey) of the property owners in the neighborhood agree

They are City Ordinances. There are only 2 possible outcomes for violating an ordinance, 1 is a fine, the other is jail, or a combination of both. Sure you could get a warning but not very likely. If almost 90% want standards then they should start a H.O.A. if you let the city retain control of standards what's to stop new City Commissions from telling homeowners they need to start putting red front doors on the houses, or everyone needs to have shutters on all the windows but they can only be black ones.
The idea that the city will not change the Ordinances in the future is laughable at best. Thats not even taking into account that if an Ordinance is violated the Police can & will be used to enforce them. Our Police already have enough to deal with without having to go give tickets or arrest someone because they went ahead & painted the shutters on their house, without permission.

Perhaps you should read the actual law and not the law according to Kelly Shaw. You will find that any modifications in view from the front needing a building permit are subject to review. The $50,000 figure is a trigger not a requisite amount to spend. The law plainly states any modifications needing a building permit regardless of cost fall into the review process. Go read Sec. 4-10-122 of the municipal ordinances and tell me I'm wrong.

The problem is that Shaw and the city has placed certain conditions on the review that aren't found in the actual ordinances. Claiming the law isn't as onerous as stated in the municipal code because of selective enforcement is intellectually dishonest.

The misinformation from the Downtown Cabal is astounding. This is fascism plain and simple.

Why doesn't the Downtown Cabal implement an extremely simple solution - grandfather existing ownership? I'm still opposed to the law in general, but if someone buys a house or business downtown with the laws in place, then they are actively agreeing to the design standards.

Simple solution but the Downtown Cabal isn't looking for a 20-30 year process here. They are trying to do all of it at once, homeowners be damned.

Since the label "intellectually dishonest" gets hurled around a lot by @5; can someone give us a good definition of stated term? I, and others, have been accused of being so, and would like to better understand what it's suggested that we are guilty of...

Maybe you need to read the actual law. Just because there is a review of a project, does not mean anything else is triggered, nor does the law state that. There have been quite a few signs that have gone up downtown since the standards were put in place. The signs were reviewed for compliance with the design standards and approved administratively, with no triggers for any additional improvements required. Improvements have been going on all over the residential neighborhood since the standards were passed, and wow, nothing else required from the homeowners other than just what they wanted to do. The proof is in the pudding. The standards are working well, and no one has been required to do anything other than what they chose to do in the first place.

Are those the sign Melissa Dailey and Kelly Shaw were referring to when she told the DDRB that the city has been lax in enforcing sign standards and would be revisiting some of them?

It's nice for the Downtown Cabal to tell us look at what we have done which is not full enforcement of the law. @squishedbug and @ onward, why don't you just change the law to reflect the standards which you are enforcing?

Intellectual dishonesty is advocacy of a position one knows to be false. You sir have been intellectually dishonest in your arguments because as someone who appears to be part of the Downtown Cabal, you know full well that Shaw's statements don't give us a full explanation of the law. Yet you continue to advocate it. You know there is a big difference between safety standards and aesthetic design standards yet you continue to compare the two as if they are similar. You know there is a difference between the city exercising it's rights to an easement at the city's expense and requiring a citizen to spend his own money to change an easement yet you continue to compare the two as if they are similar.

That sir is the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty. It's not quite lying, but intentionally distorting he truth.

So @onward, who are you really? Dailey? Shaw? You sure appear to be a part of the Cabal. Are you going to cowboy up and admit who you are to the people you allegedly serve?